update_settings_sonarr_by_sonarr_id

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the PUT method and advises inspecting the GET or /schema endpoint before sending a body, which hints at the request contract, but it does not describe authorization requirements or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, the HTTP route, and a short Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with a free-form body parameter and an output schema, the instruction to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint addresses the main invocation unknown. The description is less explicit about when to use it relative to sibling settings tools, but annotations and the output schema cover safety and return expectations sufficiently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the body parameter is an open additionalProperties object. The description compensates by identifying sonarr_id as the Sonarr instance ID and explaining that body is the request payload whose fields should be discovered from the matching GET or /schema endpoint, which is essential guidance for an otherwise opaque parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with "Update Sonarr instance" and specifies the exact HTTP route PUT /api/v1/settings/sonarr/{sonarrId}, making the verb and resource clear. It is distinguishable from create/delete/list siblings by the word "Update" and the sonarrId path parameter, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by "Update Sonarr instance" and the PUT method, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over create_settings_sonarr or delete_settings_sonarr_by_sonarr_id. It does provide a practical prerequisite: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first to understand the expected body fields.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.